Table of Contents

Open Session, March 21

Report of the Executive Secretary
Report by British Officials
Review of Department of State Records at NARA
New Presidential Libraries Project on Implementation of
Executive Order 12958
Pre-Publication Release of Document Lists

Closed Session, March 21

Implementation of Executive Order 12958
Report of the Subcommittee on Declassification of
State Department Records
Report of the Subcommittee on the Nixon Volumes
Access to National Security Agency Historical Records
Report of the Subcommittee on Declassification of
Foreign Relations Volumes

Closed Session, March 22

Planning the Truman and Eisenhower Retrospective
Intelligence Volumes
More on Pre-Publication of Document Lists
Remarks by Deputy Assistant Secretary Freeman

Open Session, March 21

Chairman Warren Kimball called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. He introduced
two new members of the Committee: Nancy Bernkopf Tucker of Georgetown University
and Robert Schulzinger,of the University of Colorado. Kimball also introduced two
guests: Heather Yasamee and Gillian Bennett, both of whom play major roles in
producing the British Policy Overseas series of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Yasamee is Head of Records and Historical Services, while Bennett is Head of Historians. Kimball then asked if there were any corrections to the minutes for the
previous Committee meeting on December 11-12, 1995. When no comments were
forthcoming, he stated that the minutes stood approved as distributed to Committee
members. After a State Department photographer took pictures of the Committee,
Schulzinger asked about the Committee's schedule for the rest of the year. Kimball
responded that the Committee would discuss it prior to adjournment.

Report of the Executive Secretary

Executive Secretary William Slany made an oral report supplementing his written
report to the Committee, addressing first the issue of two staff vacancies that the office is
trying to fill. He hoped that an individual would be selected to fill the General Editor's
position before the end of March. He also hoped to fill the second vacancy for a historian
in the General and European Division; the delay was due to a mechanical problem, not
because the bureaucracy will not allow the Office to fill it. Slany noted that HO has been
provided with the resources it needs for travel to the Johnson Library and elsewhere and
for its publications program, which will continue to be in book form as far as can be seen
down the road. Volumes will also be made available on CD-ROM. Initially, selected
volumes would be included on the PA Bureau CD-ROM, but by 1997 or 1998, it was
planned to include all Kennedy volumes on a single CD-ROM.

The draft of the charter for the Committee has been signed by Secretary Moose,
following some revisions proposed by Kimball. HO will publish 17 or 18 volumes this
year but will not finish the 1961-1963 subseries. Part of the delay involves the
unexpected opening of new sources. An example is the Soviet Union volume for 1961-1963, into which HO is now incorpordting new intelligence materials, a process
complicated by a lack of consensus about just which intelligence documents should be
printed. The revision of the Soviet Union volume will take a few more months. The
delay has also been brought about by declassification appeals; HO is still learning how to
go about the process as expeditiously as possible. Not a single volume has been
completely cleared during the past 6 months.

Kimball commented that the Committee may want to provide some guidance on
intelligence documentation. He also noted that he had received a letter from Emmet Page
at the Department of Defense in response to his letter regarding, as Page called them,
"declassification management issues." The letter will be referred to a DOD committee on
which Mel Leffler sits, so he will have an opportunity to pursue the matter.

Report by British Officials

Heather Yasamee then discussed the British Policy Overseas series. She noted
that their series does not have an advisory committee but she has come to appreciate its
value after talking the previous day with historians and editors on the Foreign Relations
staff. From those talks she also learned that their series and Foreign Relations share the
same approach and many common problems, but that their problems were rather less than
ours. For example, they don't have the pressure of a timetable or the same
declassification problems, although as they move inside the 30-year declassification line
they may encounter more problems. Currently they do not have a declassification
division and have had very few documents withheld from publication. The British
Government seems genuinely disposed toward opening its 30-year-old material, and she
is encouraged by this.

Gill Bennett reported that the United Kingdom was presently publishing two
series of diplomatic papers, covering the 1941-1950 and 1950-1960 time periods. In
1994, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave its historians permission to publish a
third series covering in part the "closed period"(less than 30 years old). The first volume
of this series will deal with Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1968-1975, and the second with
Détente and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1972-1975. The
two volumes are testing vehicles for two different approaches. One will be a broad sweep
("atmospheric") volume, the other a micro volume with more detail. For the first time
FCO historians will face the need to clear a whole volume. They decided therefore to start
with less politically sensitive issues to facilitate the declassification. Both volumes are
set for publication in 1997. They will not include microform supplements but will
include more editorial material in the form of footnotes, editorial notes, and other
scholarly paraphernalia. The hope is that these volumes will be of greater help to FCO
officers involved in current diplomatic activities. In creating their volumes, Bennett
noted, FCO historians face delays caused by personnel cutbacks and by requests for other
types of research projects for the FCO. Yasamee and Bennett were in Washington on a
"benchmarking" study to see how Foreign Relations volumes are produced.

Kimball, after praising an FCO historians' sponsored conference on diplomatic
documents and publications, asked a series of questions:

1. Was there any truth to "rumors" of British discontent with the Guyana
declassification decisions of the United States?

2. Would they comment on "rumors" that they had held declassification talks
with Tony Dalsimer?

3. Would they like to comment on the effects of the U.S. 25 year rule?

4. Could they provide clarification on the British 30-year rule in regard to
declassification of documents for the Foreign Relations series? and

5. Did an "informal"' advisory committee exist for the FCO series?

Yasamee responded that the rumor regarding British discontent with the Guyana
decisions was "unsubstantiated." The only problem was the short time-frame for action.
She added that consultations would continue to ease problems created by the shorter U.S.
declassification time frame. FCO in general would be supportive of early publication of
British documents in Foreign Relations volumes and was using its influence to gain
accord on the issue from other Ministries. Finally, no formal or informal advisory
committee existed, but the FCO historians did seek outside input as deemed useful from
academics. Bennett added that they had consulted with outside historians before
launching their new series.

In response to a question from Robert Shulzinger, Bennett stated that the British
would be creating a publication schedule. Kimball noted that the Foreign Relations
Advisory Committee rarely provided advice on individual volumes but took as its
primary mandate advising on the general direction of the series and aiding HO in
bureaucratic issues.

Yasamee asked Slany if HO was involved in informal consultations with
academic historians. He replied that classification problems made this difficult. Melvyn
Leffler, responding for the Committee, stated that the Committee had played a useful role
in facilitating declassification and in getting CIA cooperation with the series. He also
observed that not enough intra-governmental communication existed on issues of interest
to the Committee and thus they tried to facilitate it. Yasamee noted that the British, too,
used public pressure to promote intra-governmental consultations. Bennett added that the
British did not seem to have the same level of problems. They had fewer agencies,
relations among the agencies were not as adversarial, and the "insiders" mechanism for
promoting solutions appeared to work better. Public involvement could at times make a
solution more difficult to achieve.

Kimball noted that the Committee was mandated by law and this gave it greater
clout than most advisory bodies. It was activist and not "accommodationist," although it
was anxious to work with government agencies and officials. In response to a question
from Yasarnee, Kimball stated that the Department of State had been responsive to its
requests, and that on occasion the Committee went to the Secretary of State with its
concerns. Slany noted that the Committee boosted HO credibility with the academic
community.

Kimball then asked for information on the declassification process in the United
Kingdom. Yasamee outlined the basic rules, including the presumption that all records
should be opened at 30 years, and the exemptions to this rule. British reviewers worked
with guidelines provided by the Ministries and engaged in page-by-page review. Rate of
withholding was monitored and certain watchdog mechanisms also existed. About 3
percent of all materials was withdrawn from FCO files. All withdrawn files were subject
to a 10-year re-review. She also noted that the destruction rate was about 50 percent for
FCO records and that the FCO was looking at introducing more records appraisal
techniques.

In response to a question from the Committee, Tony Dalsimer estimated that the
Department of State withholds less than 1 percent of the records for its own equities and
about 3 percent overall. In comparison to the approximately 20 FCO review full-time
employees, the Department currently operates with 16-1/2 FTEs for historical
declassification to cope with the average 4.5 million pages a year of records previously
produced compared to the United Kingdom's 1.5 million pages. Yasamee explained that
the British were increasing their reliance on excisions to get more information out and
that the jackets of folders contained annotations of which documents had been returned to
file after a second declassification review.

The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. and resumed at 11:04 a.m. Kimball thanked
Heather Yasamee and Gillian Bennett for their participation and let them know they were
welcome to stay. He then introduced Reginald Green from S/S-EX, who handles the
contracts for the Advisory Committee.

Green explained that his job was to ensure that Committee members get paid in a
timely fashion. He explained the December problem and let the members know that the
Financial Management Office (FMP) changed its rules in December so that the end of
year 1099 form would only indicate salary and not a total of salary and reimbursable
expenditures. He told the members that they would now need to submit a travel voucher
after each Committee meeting, which would take approximately 2 weeks to process. He
let the Committee know that the December invoices needed correction and that he would
take care of those. He will also issue a blanket voucher for this fiscal year, and the
members can use the December form (Shirley Taylor will provide copies to the members)
as a guide.

In response to a question from Kimball, Green explained that members will
receive two separate checks for each meeting: one for salary and one for reimbursable
expenses.

Michael Schaller asked if members could buy airline tickets at government rates.
Green responded that he was still working on that issue-- it is possible for contractors to
get government rates-- but it was taking time to work out a procedure on this and he
wasn't sure it would work in this case.

Kimball asked about the letter from Slany re salary and expenses; Green
explained that there would be no 1099 form issued this year; Slany's letter was sufficient.

Review of Department of State Records at NARA

Michael Kurtz, Assistant Archivist, reported that as Mel Leffler and Anne Van
Camp discovered during their visit to Archives II, out of 31 million pages of State
material for 1960-63 and before, 15 million pages remain unreviewed. Approximately
2,500 cubic feet of material has no State or CIA equity-- it is organizational and cultural
affairs materials and he believes a good candidate for bulk declassification. There are
1,800 cubic feet with no State equity but with CIA equities.

Kurtz mentioned he has discussed with State reviewers the need for the
use of risk management initiatives to avoid a more intensive page-by-page review.
He asked if the Committee had any suggestions. Overall, Kurtz continued, since
October 1, 1995, 40 million pages have been reviewed and NARA has surveyed all
classified files and given agencies a listing and encouraged them to either send reviewers
to look at this material or sign off on its release.

Anne Van Camp said there were no State reviewers at NARA, and Kurtz
responded that it was his understanding that they had responsibilities elsewhere, but that
Machak was the person to answer this.

Frank Machak said that some of the problems at Archives had just come to his
attention and that reviewers had been sent to Newington to get control of the process.
The move forward to Newington was a value judgment, and now that he understands the
problems, he will revisit the issue and send some people out to assess the problems. He
welcomed Committee suggestions on setting priorities and thought State should be able
to catch up.

Leffler asked for clarification on who has the authority to do what. He is
concerned about authority from State to NARA to do what they're authorized to do.
Machak responded that he and Kurtz are talking about this-- once a survey and sampling
are done a definition that both agencies can accept will be developed. Machak thought
adequate guidelines existed, but he was willing to go back and revisit the guidelines
issue.

Leffler asked about the 50-page list of things not done-- he asked Machak if his
statement says that file declassification means NARA can open these files? Machak said
these inventories were new to him and he doesn't know who made the annotations on the
list; he thought there was a better way for State to validate authorization for release than
on an inventory sheet.

Marvin Russell said that before State left Archives in September they recommended material for bulk declassification and promised a report on it. This report
was due October 16 and has not yet been received. In December, he was told that the
report was not going to be approved.

Kimball asked when clarification could be made. Dalsimer reminded Machak that
bulk declassification was a management issue. Kimball asked that the process be moved
along. Machak said that the new Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security was being
brought up-to-speed and that it will be decided at the "Moose level." He promised an
answer by the next Committee meeting.

Leffler asked, if this requires page-by-page declassification, when will that be
decided? Machak responded that State will do the reasonable thing and this appears to be
an area worth going back to--he must put resources where they make sense.

Russell said that working with Ken Rossman will make for a smoother process for
accessing and ironing out problems.

New Presidential Libraries Project on Implementation of Executive Order
12958

Nancy Smith began her report on implementing Executive Order 12958 on
declassification by describing a new pilot project for declassifying Presidential papers
that will be done at the Johnson Library. There are 7 million pages of classified
Presidential papers, including 22,500 pages from Hoover through the first year of the
Ford administration.

Smith explained that the project represented an effort to include the intelligence
community in implementing the E.O. The Archivist's proposed plan for implementation
of the E.O. in Presidential papers for the first year calls for declassification of the Hoover
classified papers and the classified Vietnam papers for the Kennedy, Johnson, and Ford
administrations. An External Referral Working Group-- sponsored by the CIA-- has
proposed scanning these Presidential papers to optical disk, and forwarding the disk to
those agencies with equity in order to facilitate declassification of high-level material.
The CIA has agreed to provide to the Presidential libraries all equipment needed. The
agencies will vet the material on the disk and send back two disks, one with classified and
the other with declassified material. The libraries will then match them to their original
documents and release the declassified files.

Smith stressed that the project was in the pilot stage; there have, however, been
many meetings. In her opinion, this was the only viable option proposed by the agencies
to deal with on-site interagency review of the 7 million classified pages. The
participating agencies could donate either manpower, money, or space. Smith said the
agencies themselves would determine the level of review: "If CIA wants line-by-line
review, that's fine; if State wants thumbs up, thumbs down, that's OK too." Either way,
NARA wants as many declassified Presidential papers as possible. Smith said the pilot
program would start with the Vietnam files at the Johnson Library; a site visit is planned
for the third week in April; in May up to 30 personnel, mostly from DIA, would start
scanning the material. NARA might provide facilities at College Park for the smaller
agencies to review the disk. Although NARA was trying to get some sense of consensus
on the project, Smith said that--- other than this proposal-- she did not know how the
agencies would participate in declassifying the materials. The CIA has estimated the
relative costs at $4 per page for on-site review and 40 cents per page if scanned and viewed in
the agencies. DOE may want to see (not clear) all classified Presidential papers; DOE
and CIA plan site survey trips.

Kimball asked if this program will have an impact on implementation of the
executive order. Smith replied that NARA's concern is seeing real declassification at the
end of this process-- they are waiting to see the end result and hope to use this project as
a declassification tool. It remains NARA's responsibility to force agencies to review this
material. CIA told Smith that the day the disk arrives at CIA the agency will begin its
review. Smith felt that if CIA and other intelligence agencies comply then the other
classifying agencies will follow.

Kimball asked if this program will delay implementation of the executive order.
Smith replied that she has not seen any plans from agencies for on-site review. By
December 15, NARA expects a percentage of Presidential papers to be declassified; if a
real initiative by the agencies is ongoing, that would be the time for them to request a
slide in the date.

Leffler stated that many agencies are responding to the executive order by
opening "trash," just for the statistics; he thought Smith's project was a smart way to get
a small amount of important material opened up. This program also addresses mixed
equities.

Slany asked about search capabilities on the disk, and Smith responded that the
product would be a declassification tool only and not a searchable disk, but there may be
a future potential for disks. When releasable material is identified, it is NARA's
responsibility to declassify and release the documents. Slany followed by asking Smith if
she had seen the scanning equipment. She responded that she had not, but only flat-bed
scanners were able to do the job and that's why military reservists were being used.

Patterson asked about "intelligence material." Smith responded that work will
begin on the end of Vietnam country files from State, CIA, and military agencies; then
run straight through Vietnam country materials. State is by far the largest equity holder
in the Presidential papers. If the pilot project goes well, the libraries may do all Vietnam
country files.

Herschler asked if NSA and DOE want to review all 7 million pages, and Smith
replied that yes, she believes NSA wants the whole disk to enable them to spot their
equities. DOE is concerned that documents containing nuclear information are in
Presidential papers. In conclusion Smith pointed out that it is NARA's responsibility to
release a percentage of papers every year and that all agencies must address this issue.

Van Camp asked about the authority of the working group and who was State's
representative. Smith responded that it is under the auspices of CIA, but all classifying
agencies are represented on it; Dalsimer is State's representative.

Leffler asked if State was supportive of the group and Smith responded that not
yet, but the original proposal was still in the working stage. Machak confirmed that State
is making a serious effort to implement the executive order. Smith inserted that NARA is
in charge of ensuring that the declassification objective is reached, and although there are
strong reservations about this project it is one way of addressing the declassification issue
for Presidential papers. Machak said that State is keeping its eye on the ball and working
toward the 15 percent benchmark.

Leffler asked if State has the resources to send people to the libraries to do a page-by-page declassification. Machak responded that State reserves all its prerogatives; that
NARA is doing its utmost to get the agencies organized, and this is the first time NARA
has played a key role in forcing agencies to get it together.

Kimball requested more information from Smith and then wants the Committee to
get State reactions and Committee recommendations on the plan. Leffler thought the
Committee needed to decide on any input in a timely way.

Machak said that although the Presidential libraries are responsible for ensuring
material is released, agencies still have the cost of clearances, etc. He felt the libraries are
trying to replicate this process into another arena.

Leffler asked that NARA representatives be present for the discussion on 30-year
declassification issues later in the afternoon; specifically Dalsimer or Machak and Nancy
Smith. Dalsimer agreed and as Smith was already on the afternoon agenda, she agreed to
be present.

The morning session adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

Pre-Publication Release of Document Lists

Kimball reconvened the open meeting at approximately 1:55 p.m. with a new
agenda item occasioned by the arrival of Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at the National
Security Archive (NSA). Kimball referred to a letter written by Kornbluh asking about
declassified documents to be published in the Foreign Relations volume on the Bay of
Pigs. The NSA is holding a conference on the topic in late May and wanted to have
access to declassified, but not yet published, documents in that volume.

Kimball asked if the volume had been cleared. Rita Baker stated that not all the
documents had been declassified. Nina Noring added that the remaining documents
should be cleared within about 2 weeks.

Kimball explained that, when planning their meeting, the NSA thought the
Foreign Relations volume would be available for use at, the conference, but has been
informed that the volume will not be published by the conference date. Consequently,
Kornbluh had requested pre-publication access to the declassified documents. Kimball
acknowledged that granting prior access to documents could create problems.

Luke Smith pointed out that NSA has held a number of conferences on the Cuban
Missile Crisis without having many documents.

Kornbluh replied that NSA had held a conference in Havana and that copies of the
1958-1960 Foreign Relations volume on Cuba were given to Castro to show him
that
histories were being written and to urge the Cubans to declassify their own documents.
He went on to say that the upcoming conference faced a different situation because of the
difficulty in getting new documents. All he was asking for was pre-publication access to
one or two dozen of the already declassified, key documents for use at the conference.
He explained that advance access would be important to the Foreign Relations series and
to the historians, including Arthur Schlesinger, who planned to attend the conference.

Noring asked Kornbluh whether he is familiar with JFK assassination documents,
which contain Bay of Pigs documents, and noted that the CIA would be going to the JFK
Library to review them. Kornbluh said that he has reviewed those documents, and he
believes that Foreign Relations has more documents.

Luke Smith noted that Mike Warner of CIA also received a request from NSA,
which CIA would refuse. If HO acceded to the NSA request, it would put HO in the
position of releasing documents that CIA will not release.

In reply, Kombluh noted that he just wanted documents declassified for
publication in Foreign Relations. Kimball indicated that this is not an easy matter to
resolve and needed some discussion before a decision was made.

Nancy Smith pointed out that some of the documents in question came from
NARA and the Presidential libraries, both of which must have some input in the matter.
She stated that HO historians have been given special access to documents for Foreign
Relations, and to release them in a nontraditional manner could create problems. She
stated that NARA and the Presidential libraries have received complaints from
researchers about the situation in the past and she repeated that NARA would have to be
brought into any decision involving pre-publication release. She also noted that if
documents at Presidential libraries are open, anyone can have access to them.

Kimball replied that all that seemed necessary was to inform NARA and the
libraries that specific documents have been cleared. Nancy Smith acknowledged that if
documents have been declassified, researchers could just request them.

Kimball returned to the earlier focus of the discussion regarding how to open
declassified documents prior to publication of a particular volume. Michael Hogan
indicated that he supported giving the documents to the NSA.

Kimball asked for the thoughts of other Committee members and whether they
supported releasing all documents or just those asked for. Leffler lent his support to
giving NSA the documents it wanted. He suggested the release would accomplish two
things: 1) give Foreign Relations enhanced visibility and 2) symbolize the Department of
State's support for openness.

Kimball asked for the thoughts of those opposed to the release. Davis expressed
his opposition, noting it would cause disruption and the interval between the conference
and publication was only a few months.

Kornbluh pointed out that NSA supports HO and its work, stating "we're both
dedicated to openness," but he noted that HO was in the awkward situation of having
declassified documents but not making them available. He asked to be provided with a
list of the documents to appear in the volume.

Kimball said that the matter involved a much broader question. Leffler noted that
a pre-publication release of documents would set a precedent, and Keefer added that prior
access would grant a privilege to one party. Kimball asked if those were negative
developments. Keefer said that future volumes could be adversely affected, and Lawler
pointed to the additional problem of giving documents or information to one party over
another.

Kimball repeated that the discussion involved only declassified documents.
Leffler added that those documents are already open at the Presidential libraries.

Kornbluh stated that the problem was that there was no way to identify the
individual documents and that was one reason he asked for the list of documents from the
Foreign Relations volume.

Noring stated that sometimes there is a 2-year delay between the time documents
are declassified and published, but that information is supposed to be shared once
documents are declassified. She suggested that the information could be shared with all
scholars, but stated that HO is not obligated to release lists of documents from its
volumes, although that information could be made public.

Slany reported that he has received complaints about that situation and said he
realized that there is a fairness issue to deal with. If publication of a volume is delayed,
expectations are disappointed. There is also the problem caused by having a finished
manuscript ready but unable for some reason to be published immediately. He suggested
that in such cases perhaps HO could make a list of declassified documents available prior
to the manuscript's publication.

Kimball cautioned that any decisions on this situation should be carefully
considered and that the views of other agencies, such as the CIA, need to be taken into
account. He also noted that if documents are declassified, they should be released and, if
more than 30 years old, legally they must be released. Slany repeated that HO could
release a list of documents prior to publication of its volumes.

Kimball asked if there were any archival problems with releasing a list of
documents. Nancy Smith responded by stating that, although she did not know the exact
ten-ns of the agreement between the Department of State and NARA, if documents were
declassified, the Archives can make them available to other researchers. The person
wanting the documents should then go to NARA or the Presidential Library housing
them. She added that the Archives prefer not to handle requests for selective information.

Kimball indicated that the discussion was not about documents in the volumes,
but rather about documents in the various repositories.

David Langbart said that NSA can do its own research. When it wants classified
documents, NSA can submit a FOIA request.

Nina Howland stated that a good part of an historian's work was selection of
documents and asked why NSA, in particular, should have access to documents selected
for Foreign Relations volumes. Kimball responded by asking why it should matter, if the
benefit of HO's work is used in the form of a list of documents or the physical volume.

Leffler added that perhaps the * frame of reference should be determined in
advance. But, he continued, if Foreign Relations gets the credit for the information, why
should there be any opposition? He expressed the opinion that release would be a good
thing, since the series would get the publicity.

Tucker asked how this situation differed from that used by the Eisenhower
Library, which periodically gives out lists of declassified documents to keep researchers
up-to-date on newly accessible materials. She noted that perhaps such an approach could
be taken by other institutions. Schulzinger added that the matter in question is a legally
approved release since the documents are declassified. "If it is legal to release the
information, why not do it?"

Slany replied that the matter would be submitted to the Department's Legal
Adviser before any information would be released or any decision implemented. With
reference to the specific volume in question, Slany explained that the plan was to compile
the volume over 1 to 2 years, allot 1 year for declassification, and publish it about 9-10
months after the manuscript was declassified. He went on to say that the manuscript for
this particular volume had been completed, but its publication was delayed because of
additions made to it. He noted that because of the delay the claim on original research
diminishes, since some documents were already declassified in 1994 but have not yet
been released in 1996.

Slany also noted that the Cuba volume was a special case. The volume was
handled with extraordinary caution because of the expected high interest in it. That is not
the usual situation with Foreign Relations volumes.

Hogan noted that there seems to be a conflict because of that situation and that
HO and the series would have everything to gain by releasing the information prior to
publication. Leffler asked for more input from HO on the question.

Luke Smith said that the volume was unique because of its large CIA content. He
warned that opening the documents at this point may jeopardize HO's relationship with
CIA and future access to CIA documents. If Kornbluh is given a list of documents, the
list will cite numerous CIA documents on the Bay of Pigs, spurring NSA to go to CIA
asking for them and maybe more. That situation could, in turn, harm HO's relations with
CIA.

Davis responded by pointing out that the volume is way behind schedule. In his
view, if the documents are declassified and if there is a demand for them, they should be
released. He also advised that release of the documents will generate controversy and
someone in HO needs to be prepared to deal with the media and others responding to the
release. He noted that HO cannot merely deal with the question of document distribution
without dealing with the increased attention the release would unleash.

Kimball said that perhaps someone, probably NARA, should be informed of the
release.

Keefer pointed out that many of the documents, perhaps up to 200, are from CIA
and/or Defense, are not available at the Archives.

Kimball stated that the time had come to close the discussion on this issue. He
told Kornbluh that the matter would get a fair hearing and that he would be informed of
its outcome. Kornbluh then left the meeting.

Closed Session, March 21

After Kornbluh's departure, Kimball stated that perhaps the matter warranted
further informal discussion and informed the Committee that he would talk to the CIA
about the matter when they were at the Department to address the Committee during the
Friday morning session. He noted that CIA is not an accessible archival repository and
that the release being considered could open CIA to unwelcome publicity.

Keefer added that CIA will have to decide whether to make its documents
available. The NSA is interested in obtaining documents they cannot get, and, in the end,
the issue is a CIA issue.

Implementation of Executive Order 12958

Kimball asked Nancy Smith if she wanted to comment on what was discussed
earlier today.

Smith stated she was a little concerned with the turn in the conversation earlier
that morning. Most agencies know how the executive order will be implemented. The
pilot project NARA proposed involves scanning documents onto a disc and then passing
this disc to agencies with equity in them. Since the documents include material from
NSC, JCS, and CIA, agencies that have not signed the Interagency Agreement, reviewers
will need clearances from those three agencies. NARA's main focus will be to
implement the executive order and to make sure the need-to-know criteria are met.

Kimball asked if the need-to-know will be based on the need for declassification
review?

Smith responded that the people who will be at Archives conducting this pilot
program will have clearances. But agencies like the NSC, CIA and parts of DOE which
have not signed the interagency agreement may opt to do a spin-off review. The
Presidential files are not separated by agency, so there is a need-to-know requirement.

Humphrey asked if Smith was sure the interagency agreement would allow this
kind of access? She answered that it's subject to interpretation under the executive order.
She hoped that this project would begin to deal with the 7 million pages of classified files
from the Hoover administration to the first year of the Ford administration. She didn't
know how else the problem could be approached.

Humphrey asked if the collection of 7 million documents included Nixon
materials? Smith replied it did.

Van Camp asked if any one agency could prevent the pilot project from working.
Smith answered that it would proceed as planned even if one agency objects to having its
documents scanned. But, of course, this would obviously reduce the amount of material
declassified and available for research.

Report of the Subcommittee on Declassification of State Department Records

Leffler reported that he and Vince Davis spent yesterday at the State Department's
archives at Newington, VA, where they looked at 30-year old and older documents that
have been and are under review for declassification. Leffler had some questions about
the following sentence printed on page 7 of Slany's cover letter to the Conunittee: "the
goal of reaching the 30-year line by 1996 is being met and exceeded." It's clear that
HDR's reviewers at Newington are working very hard under adverse conditions; it's also
clear that they need a better facility in which to do their work. All of the central files
from 1964-1966 have been reviewed and transferred to Archives II. The review of 1967-1969 has begun. Nevertheless, the pace of declassification raises concerns about records
integration, quality, and tracking. He and Davis were also concerned about the
coordination of the physical transference of the records to Archives II, and that it is done
in a well-organized and timely manner.

In terms of meeting the 30-year deadline, HDR has succeeded for the central files,
but there is much more ambiguity for the lot files. Leffler reported that he been told by
Richard Morefield that all Top Secret lot files through 1975 were declassified. Morefield
said this categorically, without equivocation. Leffler asked Morefield if he and Davis
could see files on the Middle East, East Asia, and other areas. Morefield told him that he
couldn't retrieve them without their identifying numbers. Leffler asked where he could
find a list of such numbers. Morefield told him that no such list is available. Leffler
suggested that instead of a list he could look at the boxes, but the boxes were not labeled
or otherwise identified.

After 45 minutes, Leffler and Davis finally discovered that a log of lot files does
exist but that this log is not formatted in any particular order. After some more time, they
identified 12 lot files of interest to them. However, upon closer inspection they learned
that of the 12 lots, 1 had been reviewed; 2 had been put aside for litigation; 1 had not
been reviewed because of a transfer debate, and the 8 remaining had not been reviewed.
Thus, out of a total of 12 lots only 1 had been reviewed. Also, they couldn't find a log
just for Top Secret materials.

Keefer remarked that Top Secret lot files are kept separately from the other lot
files.

Dalsimer stated that Morefield either was misunderstood or misspoke; HDR has
completed the review of the Top Secret lot files only.

Leffler stated that there seems to be some ambiguity about the meaning of the first
number in the lot file designation. He was told that this number represents the year in
which the lot was retired. Morefield seems to think that this number means the lot
includes files up to that time. This wasn't the case. In 65 minutes of searching, Leffler
and Davis found some pre-1966 files.

Leffler stated that if he and Davis had looked only at lot files with Top Secret
documents, then Morefield's statement might have been true; but, of the 12 they looked
at many of the documents with other classifications, such as Secret, had not been
reviewed.

Dalsimer stated that HDR asked Ken Rossman for all Top Secret files. "We are
not archivists," Dalsimer explained. HDR assumed Rossman's people gave them all that
is available; they don't took for Top Secret material on their own.

Leffler expressed surprise that Dalsimer did not do this. Leffler felt to be
credible, it would be worthwhile for HDR to comport its statements with what it is
actually doing. Leffler continued that the second issue concerns the review process. He
noticed that the withdrawn documents are taken from their original boxes and placed in
folders without proper identification. Once the documents are in the folders it is not clear
which documents the withdrawn ones were originally attached to. In addition, the
released documents are re-boxed without proper labels. HDR and HO should get together
and, devise a more suitable way to properly withdraw documents.

Kimball agreed that a trained archivist was needed to help HDR improve this
situation. This should be worked on between now and the next Advisory Committee
meeting at which time a progress report can be given.

Schwar suggested that HO should have some input; it needs to know the proper
citations for withdrawn documents. Kimball agreed that the researchers should be
consulted. Luke Smith suggested that the need for consultation between HDR and HO is
also true for the central files, not just the lot files.

Leffler resumed that the third issue concerns State Department records at NARA
which has already been discussed.

The fourth issue is the review process and the results of it. Davis and Leffler
looked at the NSC records in an S/S lot file. Leffler reported that Davis found
approximately 10-15 percent of the material was withdrawn, which was significantly
more than the 2 percent often cited as the norm. Furthermore, Davis could not find
consistent, clear-cut criteria to support the withdrawal of these documents. He noticed,
for example, that all the NSC action memoranda had been withdrawn which made no
sense because these are mostly already available at NARA. When asked why, Morefield
told Davis that they had been removed because of NSC equity in them.

Dalsimer stated that HDR has been told by the NSC to withdraw all of its
numbered documents. Leffler responded that the Committee should write a letter to the
NSC noting that all the minutes of NSC discussions were available, and these are often
more interesting than the NSAMs themselves. Dalsimer expressed concern that
fonnalizing procedures might have the result of making things more restrictive by
curtailing what HDR now does on an informal basis for the NSC.

Kimball suggested that we need a list of all the numbered NSC documents. This
is a discretionary matter, and most agencies would withdraw if they knew about this. We
don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The last update on NSAMs was 16
years ago, and it was not widely distributed.

Leffler suggested the Committee write a letter to the NSC informing them that
some of their documents are being withdrawn, which does not reflect a spirit of openness,
and suggest that they allocate discretion to the State Department as stipulated in the
executive order to open these documents.

Kimball suggested that any letter should have NARA input. Leffler agreed that
the letter should not compromise the progress on releasing documents. He had also found
that documentation was more likely to be withdrawn as the level of officials rose even if
the substance was not of an equally high level.

Davis remarked that they were really surprised to find withdrawn documents in
folders without proper identification; he even found a folder labeled "Top Secret" with a
clipping of a New York Times article. Some of the boxes were in horrible condition; there
was no disaggregation when there should have been disaggregation; and the working
envirom-nent was awful. HDR clearly needs a declassification center.

Dalsimer reported that HDR had instituted a second review to root out these kinds
of problems: but, only the withdrawn items and a 5 percent spot check of overall boxes
were reviewed. When the new NARA procedures are in place, HDR planned to look into
increasing that percentage.

Kimball asked Leffler if a larger group of Committee members should visit
Newington in June. Leffler thought it was a good idea.

Leffler next asked about Roger Channel and Restricted Data material that has
been withdrawn. Dalsimer replied that these materials are doubly withdrawn. Roger
Channel documents are sent to INR where they are kept. If RD documents are found,
they are sent to the proper vault in the Department, which I believe is in PM." In
response to Schaller's question, Kimball explained what the use Roger Channel entailed.

Leffler asked why these materials should not be reviewed and made available for
research. Was HDR reviewing them now? Dalsimer replied that they were not being
reviewed now. HDR decaptioned and reviewed some of them, but those that are properly
captioned are withdrawn and go into a different box without review.

Leffler asked if the Committee could invite Ken Rossman to the next meeting.
Kimball replied that he already had.

Leffler held up a form 693 (retiring documentation on the Dominican Republic
including 1965 crisis materials) and remarked that it said 14 cubic feet of material was
sent to the Records Service Center but that only 3/4 foot was retained. He asked for an
explanation.

David Langbart explained that back in the 1960s when the lot file system was set
up it was determined that a lot of duplication existed, i.e., multiple copies of a telegram
were made for overseas posts, offices in State, and the central files. The screening
guidelines authorized the destruction of duplicate files while other non-duplicative
material was to be retained to be added to the central files. In this specific example,
duplicate files were believed to have existed elsewhere; therefore they were destroyed.

Kimball asked if this system is still in place. Langbart replied that records now
are either kept or destroyed in toto. Leffler remarked that nothing could be done about
this now. A lot of documents are being reviewed and opened up; HDR should be
applauded for all the work they have done.

Langbart returned to Leffler's comment about locating lot files. Based on the
tools at the records center it is possible to find the records of a certain agency. It's not
easy, but it can be done. Nina Noring remarked that Langbart seemed to be implying that
HDR does not know the files it is reviewing.

Dalsimer intedected that he did not think that was what Langbart meant. The
person whom Leffler and Davis dealt with at Newington, Melvin Holly, was not the
appropriate official to brief the subcommittee. It should have been dealing with Ken
Rossman.

Kimball suggested that HDR, HO, and a qualified archivist needed to get together
to address this problem; he thought that records should not be handled in this way. He
would expect a resolution by the next meeting.

Report of the Subcommittee on the Nixon Volumes

At 3:15 p.m. Kimball stated that the Committee would continue without a
break.

Van Camp reported that the subcommittee on the Nixon Project had visited
Archives II and had a briefing and tour of the Nixon Project. Some materials have been
made available for research, but the most important material for research on Foreign
Relations are the NSC files, consisting of 1.5 million pages of unprocessed documents.
The Memorandum of Understanding for HO access to the Nixon Papers has not yet been
formally signed.

Van Camp noted that there were a number of potential problems. Most important,
the materials selected for printing will have to undergo a separate review after they have
been declassified. There is a complicated review process in which people with an interest
in the material will be able to object to release. She thought objections were likely to be
based on privacy grounds.

Nancy Smith noted that there was no way of knowing, since there had been no
requests comparable to what HO would be requesting. NARA has opened 51/2million
pages of material but not in the NSC files. There were many challenges to the release of
material in the Special files. She thought the problem would not be as great in dealing
with the NSC files.

Schulzinger used the National Security country file on Vietnam as a benchmark
for comparison with the country file collection on Vietnam at the Johnson Library, with
which he was familiar. Judging from a limited list of what was in the boxes at College
Park, he concluded that the Nixon country file on Vietnam was not as complete as the
collection in the Johnson Library. He noted that the subcommittee was unable to sample
the boxes because the MOU had not been signed. He also expressed concern about
access to the Kissinger papers at the Library of Congress. He said it appeared to be
impossible to make a preliminary determination of the extent to which the collections to
be searched for the Nixon administration duplicated each other.

Tucker noted that because of the pressures imposed on National Archives
employees by the legal fallout from the Watergate scandal, few working on the Nixon
papers know much about the country files. She noted that there is not yet a schedule for
processing the materials in the collection.

Nancy Smith said that the folder title list given to Schulzinger was not as
extensive as the list prepared for the Department historians. (HO historians subsequently
showed this extensive list to Schulzinger and Tucker.) She admitted that practically no
processing has been done in the national security files because of the long-running legal
battle imolving the Nixon papers and tape-recordings. She noted that archivists are now
in the process of becoming more familiar with the files in order to prepare to assist with
the research for Foreign Relations and with the implementation of the executive order. The capabilities of the Presidential Libraries are presently stretched to meet the demands
of pressing litigation and to help meet the needs of the agencies in responding to the
requirements of the executive order. Those requirements will affect the ability of the
archivists working on the Nixon materials to respond to research requirements relating to
the Foreign Relations series.

Slany observed that the State Department provides some $80,000 per year to
assist in the processing of documentation at the Johnson Library. He suggested that the
Committee might want to recommend a similar subvention for the Nixon project as State
historians move into that material. Tuckerasked if archivists assigned to the Nixon
Project at State Department expense might be shunted into the effort relating to the
ongoing litigation process. Smith responded that a carefully worded agreement between
the National Archives and the State Department would preclude such a development.
The Committee agreed to recommend a subvention.

Smith indicated that she wanted to clarify an issue relating to the access accorded
to Committee or subcommittee members to classified documentation held by the Presidential Libraries. She noted that under existing procedures the clearances held by
the Committee members had to be verified and checked against material to be viewed.

Kimball said that the Committee intended to test that limitation.

Smith made a final observation that, with respect to the Nixon materials, it was
important to remember that once the usual clearance process had been completed for
documents selected for Foreign Relations, the National Archives would have to do an
additional review to meet requirements growing out of legislation and litigation.

Access to National Security Agency Historical Records

Karen Gatz then reported on her experience in gaining access to the National
Security Agency's historical records. She is working on the Korea; Japan volume and
found that the NSA had done a study of the Pueblo crisis. It has also done studies on
other crises, including the Liberty.

The NSA has an historical section, which has a small archive, and a national
records center. NSA documents are listed in a database, which is easy to search by
keyword. Gatz noted that other HO historians may want to use these records. Harriet
Schwar will be going next. Gatz said that the NSA staff had been very cooperative and
willing to help her. She had been able to copy documents with no restrictions, although
another office has to review these and she has not yet received from the agency the copies
she made. She was not sure whether there would be any problems, but the NSA had
seemed to be open and her research had been a very pleasant experience.

Kimball reminded the Committee that the members had a NSA document list
given to him by David Langbart. He noted that there had been a sea-change since 3 years
ago when the NSA had been very uncooperative. He asked that HO let the Committee
know if there were any problems.

Gatz reiterated that all the staff at NSA had been very helpful. She added that she
had been told that a NSA committee was being set up to deal with declassification issues.

She noted that some NSA studies contained codeword information. which complicated
access and declassification.

Kimball asked how valuable were the documents to which she had received
access. Gatz replied that they primarily related to intelligence-gathering and that some
were very technical. The question was how much HO historians could understand, much
less use. Kimball asked whether there had been any that might be useful for the series.
Gatz said yes, there were some intelligence summaries and some briefing papers for high-level officials.

Langbart pointed out that the records of the Naval Security Group Command
might be useful for the Pueblo crisis. The records are currently in Crane, Indiana, but
that facility is to be closed; he is not sure where the records will go after that.

Report of the Subcommittee on Declassification of Foreign Relations Volumes

[Begin Classified Discussion]

[approximately one page deleted]

[End Classified Discussion]

The Committee then went into an off-the-record session and then into executive
session, after which it adjourned for the day.

Closed Session, March 22

Planning the Truman and Eisenhower Retrospective Intelligence Volumes

Kimball called the closed session to order at 9:05 a.m. He began by noting that
because of the large contingent from the CIA, the Committee should go to the morning
session first and leave the Committee odds and ends until afterwards. The session would
begin with Bill Slany's and Kay Oliver's comments, and the Committee could discuss
any additional items or comments it might have with Oliver and her staff during the
coffee break. The subject matter today was the planning of the Truman and Eisenhower
retrospective volumes. He suggested that the discussion with the CIA officers should
close around 10: 15 a.m. so that they could get back to work.

[Begin Classified Discussion]

[approximately 2/3 page deleted]

[End Classified Discussion]

Kimball thanked the CIA representatives and at 10:20 a.m., the meeting adjourned
for a break. When the meeting resumed at 10:45 a.m., Kimball opened the floor to staff
comments and asked that only specific matters be discussed.

More on Pre-Publication of Document Lists

Keefer urged the Committee to think carefully about the proposal from the National
Security Archive. Kimball said that the Committee had a proposed solution. When a
compilation had been completely declassified and all its documents were over 30 years
old, the list of papers would be made available by appropriate means, probably at an
archival repository. The matter might be re-thought if the CIA expressed concerns.

Humphrey suggested that the proposal emphasize that the documents would not be
available directly from HO or the Department. Kimball suggested saying "documents are
not available from the Department of State." Documents would be sent to the National
Archives following declassification.

Tucker asked whether there would be trouble with other agencies. Kimball said
that the Defense Department in particular had been slow to release documents and might
need reminders.

Keefer said that the details would need working out with Oliver and other CIA
representatives and with DOD. Tucker said the list should go to all agencies concerned
so that respective offices could make dorcuments available. Kimball said that ideally all
agencies should automatically send their declassified documents to NARA. The
Committee would discuss the matter further in June.

Herschler mentioned an existing arrangement with the Presidential libraries under
which they supplied a printout of the database showing which documents had been
obtained from which agencies and the state of the declassification process. The process
might be extended to NARA or other agencies.

Smith said that the CIA would have to do a lot of searching to compile a complete
document list. Schulzinger said that the Committee should not jeopardize future relations
with the CIA.

Remarks by Deputy Assistant Secretary Freeman

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Bennett Freeman arrived at 10:55
a.m. and was introduced. Kimball explained that the National Security Archive wanted
advance access to the most recent Cuba volume. The Committee agreed not to grant
special deals, but also agreed that access should be arranged to documents that were
declassified, unpublished, and over 30 years old. In such cases, a list of documents
would be supplied, with the documents themselves available at NARA. Difficulties were
expected from DOD and CIA.

Freeman said that he liked the idea in principle. Kimball said that the Committee
worried that it might disrupt working relations with DOD and CIA.

Freeman said that he was pleased to meet the new members of the Committee. He
specifically mentioned Schulzinger's history of the Council on Foreign Relations and
Tucker's expertise on China. He then asked about the luncheon with the Archivist the
day before. Kimball said that the Committee was favorably impressed and had brought
up issues of concern. Freeman said that it should be helpful to have an Archivist who
was close to the President. He also discussed a speech by Senator Moynihan on release
of classified materials and asked about other concerns of the Committee.

Kimball said that the Committee had discussed compilation of a retrospective
Foreign Relations volume that would include CIA documents concerning covert
operations in Indonesia, Guatemala, and Iran. Over the longer term, other volumes might
cover not only covert actions but intelligence analyses.

Schaller asked about the Thailand volume, which included covert action materials.
HO and the Committee recommended seeking publication.

Freeman said that he was all for pressing on if the CIA was being more open. He
was skeptical about whether 30-year-old documents could still have an impact on
relations with foreign governments. Kimball said that he was also skeptical about claims
that there might be legal ramifications about documents involving corporations.

Kimball said that the day before, the Committee had asked specific questions about
declassification at Newington. Slany would look into a communication from Frank
Machak. Machak was said to be feeling pressure from elsewhere, which was slowing
declassification. A risk assessment from Dalsimer seemed to be having an effect.
Kimball then asked for discussion of other issues.

Van Camp said that Nancy Smith of the Office of the Presidential Libraries had
spoken of a project using scanner technology to put documents on disks so that agencies
could review them. So far, all but State had signed on. Leffler said that the Committee
recommended that State do so. Kimball said that the Committee would send a letter
endorsing the pilot project; Slany said that it should go to Pat Kennedy. Freeman asked
for a copy of the letter.

Freeman reminded the Committee that the Secretary of State planned to give a
speech on environmental issues and international affairs on April 9 in California, and
invited Anne Van Camp to attend. After asking about the date of the next meeting, which
was tentatively scheduled for June, he left at 11:15 a.m.

Kimball said that the Committee wanted to proceed with reasonable aggressiveness
and with some diplomacy on the list. He then asked for further topics. Claussen
described HO's participation in the Department's Strategic Management Initiative, and
thanked members of the Committee who had participated.